I'm sorry if this is disrespectful, but I came across this thread in Google, and couldn't help but jump in....I think this girl has labeled herself a party girl on MySpace so, the guys acted reasonably..and I'm a girl!! I don't know about this guy though..

http://www.michaelcrook.org/blog/200...wanted-it-bad/

This blogger essentially calls her out as a slut, and I don't think that's right. But then, SHE was the one that took 20 mins to find the damn thing

Hi, 1953 is calling and wants its morals and cultural views back. Think what you want about the girl for suing but to call her a whore for having intercourse....wow. The sex was consensual meaning the guy was quite all right with it as well. Does that make him a whore too?

I just can't believe it's 2008 and we're still calling women whores and labeling them as "improper" because they have sex out of the wedlock.

It's college. People hook up with each other. It happens. But nobody should have to worry that their sexual acts will be caught on camera without their permission.

I am not talking about sex out of wedlock. This was clearly a casual encounter at a frat house in the bedroom. It was not even a girlfriend/boyfriend thing.

And frankly she can do as she pleases- I am just pointing out how it looks. It has nothing to do with 1953 versus 2008- it has to do with the fact most ladies do not have one night stands in fraternity houses.

I do agree that her right to privacy is totally separate from the moral argument. It is just that from a public perception standpoint she is really screwing herself over. This is not a good way to be famous when you start looking for a husband (admittedly a double standard expectation of women which I think unfortunate- but there it is.)

Edit- I also apologize for being so coarse about this. I was working late last night and not in a good mood. Also, as I am now in my 30s I am seeing a lot of ladies I know who made bad calls early in life and how it is devastating them now. It is very frustrating to watch people do something we all do from time to time and just happen to be the one who gets caught up in a bad situation. I don't hate this young lady. I just think the lawsuit is bad decision #2 and makes the perfectly normal bad decision #1 into something that is even worse- i.e. suggesting she is a gold digger. Saying whore on an internet forum doesn't exactly help the situation, but it was my gut reaction at the time.

That's my argument right there. I'm really not trying to pick on you...I promise...I'm just pointing out the differences in how we view men and women when it comes to sex. Ladies don't have one night stands in fraternity house but what about the fraternity guys that are engaged in that same act with the lady who had sex in the frat house? He ultimately is still considered a gentlemen.

I just kinda feel that a lot of the posts have in a way blamed her for getting filmed. I don't agree with the suing part but it's like she's being bashed for hooking up with the guy in the first place. Did she make a mistake by having sex with this douchebag? Yes. Did she deserve to be filmed? No. To take it a step further, this is exactly the reason why many women won't come forward when they're sexually assaulted. The public passes judgments on her such as: "Well, if she weren't a party girl, this wouldn't have happened to her" or "If she didn't go home with this guy, this wouldn't have happened." Nobody deserves for this type of stuff to happen. Obviously, this is something that hits close to home as one of my best friends was raped not too long ago after making a bad choice...she was drunk and went back to her friend's house to sleep it off and do a bit of kissing. He ended up raping her and she didn't report it because she didn't want the police, or the public, to dig through her personal life and pass judgments on her for her choices or past reputations as they tend to do with the female victim. I would hate for anyone to think of her as a whore just because she made a poor choice and she was a bit of a party girl....

That's because people believe in the "boys will be boys" nonsense. And it is nonsense.

I have drilled into my daughters' (18 and 16) heads all kinds of rules to live by that are designed to 1.) make sure they are safe and 2.) help them make choices which demonstrate self-respect. It's tough raising girls in this culture which seems to put such a premium on sexiness.

I plan to do the same with my boys (5 and 6) - and also include what I think are behaviors which demonstrate respect for themselves, and for the young women they will someday date. I hope they will be fraternity men, and I hope they will treat all women as well as they would want men to treat their sisters. "Boys will be boys" just won't cut it.

:) This is excellent and I love the gender egalitarian way of raising children.

Both your daughters and sons will have to overcome peer pressure that tries to override what you taught them. But kids who are taught usually defer back to what they know is right. Even if they make occasional mistakes (prayerfully not really big ones) because no one's perfect.

Well said ZTAngel. I think we are on the same page after all.

On the "boys will be boys" just won't cut it, I am of the opinion a fundamental change in career opportunities in the past couple of generations makes that a new reality.

Women don't have to rely on getting married to find financial stability or make a life for themselves. And while marriage is still a great thing, I would imagine better practical options for women today make it easier for them to have expectations of potential husbands more in line with what men expect of potential wives.

i agree with the following as well. i too, sadly and unfortunately, know of a few date rapes that were never reported. and from what i understand the gentlemen involved if they ever gave it a second thought it was not a negative one. nor did their brothers.

ITA, and I also like your idea of having sororities tell their new pledges NOT to go upstairs...very wise advice.

College is such a huge adjustment in terms of learning how to live independently. I honestly think that the freshmen coming in (especially the girls) could benefit from better organized advice about how they can have fun but stay safe as well.

As for the girl in this story...exactly how drunk was she not to notice the big lump in the other bed? What did she think it was...a pile of dirty laundry? Yeesh!

I thought this was standard operating procedure?

It was at Texas when I was there.

One would hope.

But from what this article was saying, the woman in question wasn't even an enrolled student. :rolleyes:

Yet another advantage to joining a sorority - they will look out for your best interests, even if you won't!

To take a very brief step back to the discussion of using the woman's name as oppossed to protecting her identity. Unless things have changed since I worked in newsrooms, that is a matter of courtesy (or perhaps ethics), not one of law.

From the Wikipedia link earlier in the thread, "As a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim (the complaining witness) during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim."

Adult victims and suspects of felony cases are commonly identified in the news media. Minors are different and protected by law in many places. Often a rape victim's identity is also protected -- but not always.

In any case, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this situation, the sex was consentual.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled debate.

You'd also think she'd remove the guys' names from her list of friends on her MySpace page!

Misdemeanor voyeurism is NOT a sex crime in FL.

Ok, then: Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, Chicago Times... yada, yada, yada. First of all, this was not a sex crime. So the girl has no statutory right to have her name withheld. Further, SHE chose to go public with a frivolous lawsuit.

It does when the person has suffered no injury which warrants compensation. When someone is physically injured, money can go toward making their life a little bitter. For what does Lauren Highley deserve to be compensated? How will the money help her life, by affording her a fancy car and nice clothes?

"Unbeknownst to Highley, Farias' fraternity brother, Kraft, was also in the room, armed with a video camera and hiding beneath a blanket on another bed. "

How can you hide under a "blanket"? Was he thin as a waif? Or was it more like pluffy duvet cover? Hmmmm.....

I'm assuming you didn't get a change to read past my first sentence because I explained what I meant. "Sometimes money is the only thing people understand and perhaps 10 days in jail and 50 hours community service did not communicate to these men that what they did was wrong." Or maybe you just didn't understand. Perhaps she didn't feel like the sentence was just. If these men had to pay money to her in a great amount they would understand better that what they did was wrong and it was possibly deter other's from trying the same thing.

There is something in a civil lawsuit called "punitive damages"
"Where the defendant’s conduct is found to be intentional or willful or wanton or malicious, the courts may permit an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and to discourage the conduct of the type the defendant engaged in." http://law.freeadvice.com/general_pr...s_punitive.htm

This is very common, so don't assume that all money in law suits are awards to making their life a little better. For example if a drunk driver broke a little boy's skate board he might only have to pay $50 in compensation, but that's not really going to effect him very much so he might have to pay thousands on dollars in punitive damages.

A judge/jury get to decide what warrants compensation, not you.

Not knowing anything about Florida Law, I'm assuming that this is an "invasion of privacy" suit. Depending on the law in Florida and the specific facts, this could be a very winnable case for her.

This, if nothing else, is a good object lesson for active members who might be reading it -- there are a lot of things which can get you sued which you probably didn't know could get you sued.

Her name is okay. Other details which are not already in major media sources or gleaned from court records are not okay.

How do you know that the sentence didn't "communicate" to them. Two college boys with no previous criinal history. Now they have criminal convictions on their records, did ten days in jail, community service, are on probation for a year, and have to pay a monthly probation supervision fee.

First of all, it is up to the judge to decide whether the sentence is just. Further, it is a gross abuse of the civil justice system for her to file suit just because SHE is not satisfied with the sentence. You are deluded if you think this is about justice. Her attorney doesn't care about justice. They both want the money.


Do you really think these kids will have to pay her money? Again, you have no idea what you speak of. Lawyers go after deep pockets like the national fraternity. The kids have nothing worth levying. Without question, the attorney intends to go after the faternity and the parents' homeowners insurance coverage. Shame on him! He knows full well that parents in FL are not responsible for the torts of their children. But he'll file suit anyway and hopes to cost the insurers enough time, trouble and expense that the insurers will eventually pay something.

You can get sued for ANYTHING. Whether the lawsuit has merit is a different issue.

I said perhaps, which means that no, i don't know what was communicated. Perhaps means that it's a possibility.

The law says she is allowed to try and get a different kind of justice and we should respect and honor the law. I'm not saying that any money should be awarded, I'm saying she has the right to ask. I'm not saying that everyone should think money should be awarded, just recognize that law suits like this are very common and she has the right to do it.
And how can you you criticize me for saying that I know the reasoning behind it (even though i said perhaps) when right there you are saying you know the reasoning behind it. How do you know she and her attorney just want money?


Again you are assuming you know the reasoning behind this even though you just criticized me for doing the same thing (even though i didn't).

Thank you for your insight into the American legal system. You really opened my eyes.

Why does it matter what their motivation is? If this young lady has been damaged, she's possibly entitled to compensation. Whether she wants money or some sense that she did the "right thing" is immaterial.

The issue here is whether these two did something which entitles the plaintiff to an award of money. Actual damages do enter into things and may even be an element of the tort. In other words, whether there are any "real" damages may or may not be an essential element here.

I haven't seen the pleadings, but it would seem she's suing for invasion of privacy, which often (this varies from place to place) only requires that someone intrude upon the plaintiff's solitude while she has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and in most places that the intrusion is something a reasonable person would find highly offensive. I think she can prove all of that without too much trouble.

I know nothing about Florida law or the law of any particular state. I do know that this lawsuit is probably anything but "frivolous" though.

I have one friend in common with her.

:)

Lol. My high school U.S. government teacher used to always say... "You're not an American, unless you have sued somebody for something!" :D

On a serious note... The young lady does deserve something... You can't video tape someone during a private moment (w/o their consent), show a few brothers and think it'll all be okay! Come on!

I would assume that the plaintiff is suing for intrusion. Seems to me that you could defend that she didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy since most fraternity houses have rooms where multiple members live and the person who filmed seems to have been the roommate of the young man having sex with her. Does she have a reasonable expectation that he would not be in his own room at night? I don't think so.

That's a defense I'm sure will be raised.

But that there is an adequate defense doesn't make a case frivolous.

My counter would be that first, unless she felt she was alone, she wouldn't have become physically intimate with the defendant, that her expectation was reasonable because the door was locked, a "do not disturb sign" was hung outside the door, other facts, etc.

I would also raise the public policy argument that if such a defense was allowed, it would be like giving carte blanche to anyone in a communal living situation to videotape the intimate acts of their cohabitants.

How is that a gross abuse of the civil justice system?

And how are you connected with the defendants? ('Cause I'm betting that you are.)

Judges determine what is just and ideally, mete out punishment accordingly. The students will not pay anything in this case, the national fraternity will. Tell me then, how is this case about anything other than extracting money from the deepest pocket?

I'll take that bet. Even if I did know them or was otherwise connected, how would these messages posted under an anonymous name benefit the students or myself? Ya' didn't think about that one, did ya'?

Yeah. You missed that.


Case Description
Case ID: 2008CA022597XXXXMB
Case Caption: LAUREN HIGHLEY V BEN FARIAS, KYLE KRAFT, AND DELTA ZETA OF DELTA TAU DELTA, INC.
Division: &nbspAB - GERBER
Filing Date: &nbspTuesday , July 29th, 2008
Court: &nbspCA - CIRCUIT CIVIL
Location: &nbspMB - MAIN BRANCH

and that is why it is in the rm section rather than say chat or news. we all get hurt by actions like this. take the time and read the other threads in this section. and if you have a problem with deepest pockets in this case, i suggest you spend some time in a civil court room in any major city. or as it has been pointed out already is your problem with the us legal system only this case.

Shouldn't you be crawling back under a blanket at the Delt house or something?:)

eta - and getting back to the idea of risk management, do many fraternities have house moms or live-in advisors/help? What could a fraternity do to avoid this kind of liability? (Other than not pledge idiots . . .)

You don't have a cogent thought so you resort to a statement like that? That really exemplifies the narrow limits of your intellectual capacity.